The US will soon run out of allies if it keeps acting like this

[Saint Marcus]

If it weren't for the Britian and France, the war might not have happened.

The US wasn't very helpful either.

And when it mattered, our real friends were there. They fought, and died trying to protect us. Sadly they failed, but they tried. At the time we didn't even have a formal alliance with either country, unlike Belgium. Yet they still showed up ready to fight our invaders.

[Saint Marcus]

And if the US determines that Prosecution is not warrented. It's Kanagroo court time. I don't think so.
I hate to say I'd trust my own government more, but after listening to all the pathetic automatic anti-anything american here, it's an easy call.

So if the US governement is covering up acts of genocide and let the guilty ones walk freely, you are ok with that?

sick.

[markusf]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
"ya the USA just stands in the way every time the EU tries to form a EU military task force etc etc etc."

I thought the USA was in a favor of a common European defense force.

They have tried hard to block it.

[Saint Marcus]

yep. they are very much against the ERRF

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Lemmy
Did you even read my earlier post on that deal?

France and Britain have urged the United States to invoke a provision from the ICC treaty that allows the United States to secure immunity for its troops through bilateral agreements with countries that host U.S. forces.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13925-2002Jun19.html

That is the type of deal that was struck in Afghanistan, Lemmy.

Then why not support the ICC court

Why should I support the ICC?

half your post, or half Echinda's post?

Echinda's.

[rah]

Better that than convicting innocent soldiers based on made up accusations by our enemies.

Yes, neither is good. I don't trust the world court to be apolitical. Remember, originally I supported it. But after listening to all the venom spouted here by our supposed allies, I got a little paranoid, and now fully agree that in it's present form, we shouldn't support it.

RAH

I doubt any US service man would get justice from the likes of you.

[Saint Marcus]

I doubt any US service man would get justice from the likes of you.

Hand 'em! Hang 'em all!!

[Lincoln]

Bill of Rights:

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

There is nothing more to say really. People in the United States are not going to give up their liberties to the International Cangaroo Court.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Saint Marcus
The US wasn't very helpful either.

The US was out of the picture entirely and had to be drug kicking and sreaming to become involved in another European war. I'm sorry but the only countries that could have and had the power to prevent WWII were the UK and France.

[Saint Marcus]

what about crimes abroad?

[rah]

Originally posted by Saint Marcus


Hand 'em! Hang 'em all!!

Even when you say things like that in jest, it still reinforces people's opinion why we never want it to come down to a person like you making that decision.
You create your own world of mistrust. And then wonder why we don't want to play. IT's sad. or more likely, you're sad.

RAH

[Saint Marcus]

The US was out of the picture entirely and had to be drug kicking and sreaming to become involved in another European war.

I know you didn't want to help us. Some friends you are.

I'm sorry but the only countries that could have and had the power to prevent WWII were the UK and France.

The US hardly did anything after WW2 to change British and French policies, and they certainly could have.

and yes, British and French policies were wrong. But that's easily said looking back at the past. Nobody predicted this would ever happen, and it did. And when it did, the US did nothing for us. Nothing whatsoever.

[Lemmy]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...-2002Jun19.html

That is the type of deal that was struck in Afghanistan, Lemmy.

good, thanks for finding it for me
now let's quote some more...

Under the terms of the accord, Afghanistan agreed that all members of the force, including U.S. liaison officers, "may not be surrendered to, or otherwise transferred to, the custody of an international tribunal or any other entity or state without the express consent of the contributing nation.

Imran pointed this out before, it only states that Afghanistan may not turn them over to the ICC. This does not garantuee immunity.

[Saint Marcus]

You create your own world of mistrust.

That's funny coming from an American. Almost as funny as when an Israeli would have said it.

You're the paranoid ones who mistrust each and every person who does not live in the US of A (or Israel).

or more likely, you're sad.

tsk. You can do better than that.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Roland
"In other words, unless Clinton gets assurance that the ICC won't indict him for war crimes in Yugoslavia and Iraq,"

Couldn't be arsed to read the rest. Lincoln, does that article recognize anywhere that the ICC jurisdiction is not retroactive ?

Ramsey Clark, of all people, was apparently leading an effort (where is it today?) to indict Clinton, Blair and others for war crimes and crimes against humanity in Yugosalvia under the 1991 Yogoslavia war crimes "statute." Among other crimes, it was alleged that the US allowed the KLA to slaughter everyone in the Serb town of Belo Polje.

First we have Sharon at the camps, the Dutch at Sebrenica, and now Clinton at Belo Polje. The facts in every case are similar. The one in charge of security permits a hostile group into a camp or town occupied by the civilian enemy, whereupon a massacre takes place. Clinton's reponsibility may be the most remote, but heck, the buck stops here, doesn't it?

Well it looks like Ramsey Clark's anti-Clinton vendetta is the source of US opposition to the ICC.

It is also interesting that Blair learned the same lesson from Ramsey Clark's accusations and got the British out from under the new ICC when he agreed to send troops to Afghanistan.

Again, does anyone know where the case against Clinton stands today?